JUDGMENT D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. - In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the only grievance raised by the petitioner is that the sales tax authorities, respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4, have wrongly rejected his application for grant of a registration certificate as a dealer under the provisions of section 16 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (in short "the Act"), read with rule 8 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (in short "the Rules"). 2. The facts not in dispute are that the petitioner did not appear before the Sales Tax Officer, Katni on January 15, 1987 and March 6, 1987 and the application for grant of certificate of registration was rejected by the impugned order dated March 6, 1987 (annexure B) only on the ground of the absence of the petitioner before the Sales Tax Officer. 3. The petitioner filed a revision under section 39 of the Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur, who also by the impugned order dated December 29, 1987 (annexure F) rejected the revision on the ground that the petitioner did not prove any sufficient cause of his non-appearance on March 6, 1987, before the Sales Tax Officer. 4. The petitioner made an attempt for rectification of review of the aforesaid order of the revisional authority by moving an application under section 45 of the Act, by pointing out that although his statement was recorded by the Sales Tax Inspector at Katni at late hours of the day on March 6, 1987, there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance before the Sales Tax Officer because on March 6, 1987, during office hours he had gone to Gondia to attend to his wife who was pregnant and whose delivery was due. The revisional authority, however, did not accept the above explanation of the petitioner was rejected his application for review also by the impugned order dated February 23, 1988 (annexure H). The petitioner explained that he had returned from Gondia to Katni in the afternoon of March 6, 1987 and only thereafter his statement was recorded by the Sales Tax Inspector, concerning his application for grant of certificate of registration as a dealer. 5. The petitioner explained that he had returned from Gondia to Katni in the afternoon of March 6, 1987 and only thereafter his statement was recorded by the Sales Tax Inspector, concerning his application for grant of certificate of registration as a dealer. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid circumstances there was sufficient cause for non-appearance before the Sales Tax Officer on March 6, 1987 and there was no jurisdiction for the sales tax authorities to reject his application for grant of certificate of registration as a dealer. 6. Without going into the question whether there was any sufficient cause for the petitioner for his non-appearance on March 6, 1987, before the Sales Tax Officer we are of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed on the short ground that under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the application for grant of certificate of registration could not be dismissed or rejected by the Sales Tax Officer for non-appearance of the applicant before him. The provisions of section 16 of the Act, which according to the respondents in their return are applicable to the case in question, read as under : "16. Voluntary registration of dealers. - (1) If on an application accompanied by a satisfactory proof of payment of a registration fee of five hundred rupees in that behalf in the prescribed manner, made by any dealer, the Commissioner is satisfied that his turnover is likely to exceed the limits specified in sub-section (5) of section 4, the Commissioner may, notwithstanding that the dealer may not be liable to pay tax under section 4, register the dealer and grant him a certificate of registration in the prescribed manner not later than ninety days from the date of receipt of the application and thereupon the provisions of section 15 shall apply to such dealer as they apply in the case of a dealer registered under that section. Provided ..............." 7. The procedure for grant of certificate under section 16 of the Act is contained in rule 8 of the Rules. Sub-rule (1) of rule 8 reads as under : "8. Grant of registration certificate. Provided ..............." 7. The procedure for grant of certificate under section 16 of the Act is contained in rule 8 of the Rules. Sub-rule (1) of rule 8 reads as under : "8. Grant of registration certificate. - (1) When the appropriate Sales Tax Officer or the authorised officer, as the case may be, after making such enquiry as he may think necessary, if satisfied that the applicant has correctly given all the requisite information, paid the prescribed fee and that the application is in order, he shall register the dealer and shall issue to him a certificate of registration in form IV within the period specified in clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 15." 8. The above provisions in the Act and the Rules, according to us, are clear enough to show that an application for grant of certificate being made, it is for the authorised officer to make such enquiry as it may think necessary and thereafter grant the certificate or reject the same within the time prescribed. The aforesaid provisions do not at all contemplate any requirement of personal appearance of the applicant or rejection of the application for non-appearance. In the above respect, rule 59 of the Rules may be noticed, which contemplates a hearing to be granted in a pending appeal or an application for revision. Under sub-rule (3) of rule 59, an appeal or application for revision can only be dismissed for default of appearance of the parties, obviously because in such cases there is contest or lis and there are parties representing the dealer and the department to be heard on the question of tax. Rule 59, however, can have no application to an application for grant of certificate of registration envisaged under section 16 of the Act read with rule 8 of the Rules. Under the provisions of section 16 of the Act and rule 8 of the Rules, on an application being made for registration by the dealer, it is for the authorised officer to make enquiries and investigations before granting the certificate of registration. It may be that in the course of that enquiry or investigation, the sales tax authority may notice the petitioner to appear personally, but his non-appearance alone could not be a ground to reject the application. 9. It may be that in the course of that enquiry or investigation, the sales tax authority may notice the petitioner to appear personally, but his non-appearance alone could not be a ground to reject the application. 9. We have been informed that the Sales Tax Inspector who had investigated into the matter had recorded the statement of the petitioner on March 6, 1987 and submitted a favourable report for grant of certificate of registration to the petitioner. The respondents also admit in paragraph 16 of their return that the registration certificate for the subsequent assessment periods has in fact been issued to the petitioner on February 27, 1989. We, therefore, do not find any jurisdiction in not granting a certificate of registration to the petitioner on his application filed on December 12, 1986. 10. Consequently, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders of the Sales Tax Officer dated March 6, 1987 (annexure B) and the orders dated December 29, 1987 and February 23, 1988 (annexures F and H) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax are hereby quashed. The respondents/sales tax authorities are directed to issue a certificate of registration to the petitioner on the basis of his application dated December 12, 1986, in case the petitioner is found to have satisfied all the requirements of section 16 of the Act, read with rule 8 of the Rules. Under the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The amount of security, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner. Writ petition allowed.